Selected Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) Regarding Motor Vehicles

NRS Chapter 483, Section 230
Anyone who operates a motor vehicle on streets and highways in the State must be licensed as a driver.

NRS Chapter 483, Section 550
Anyone convicted of being a driver of a motor vehicle on a public street or highway in the State without a valid license shall be required by the court to obtain a valid license (or show reason for disqualification).

NRS Chapter 483, Section 620
Violation is a misdemeanor.

NRS Chapter 193, Section 120
A misdemeanor is “punishable by a fine of not more than $1,000, or by imprisonment in a county jail for not more than 6 months”.

Nothing here precludes punishment for death, injury, or damage caused by irresponsible operation of a motor vehicle. Those crimes are defined and prohibited, and punishments proscribed, elsewhere in the law. Also, I expect there are plenty of people driving around without licenses. In fact, the practice is so widespread that our housing area put up a notice that drivers of work crews in the area must have a license, or the crew would be asked to leave. As long as they are responsible and don’t cause any damage, nobody (else) bothers them.

Now replace motor vehicle with firearm, and driver with shooter.

This would serve to “regulate the militia” by requiring licensees to demonstrate proper knowledge and skill, and yet not infringe on any citizen’s right to keep and bear arms. One could own and carry firearms in any responsible manner, which means keeping it concealed in most situations (because open carry tends to make people nervous).

Only when a person actually uses a firearm in public—where “in public” can be defined as narrowly as on a street, or as broadly as anywhere outside one’s home—would he or she be subject to having a license or committing a misdemeanor. The shooter would still be liable for any non-justifiable harm done to others or their property. (And, of course, a jury would have to decide what is justifiable.)

I’d rather not spend 6 months in the county jail, but I think $1,000 is a pretty cheap price to pay for saving a life.

Call me Purist

OK, here’s a random thought spurred by a tweet.

First, the tweet contents. It was a joke: “Do you know the difference between a hunter and a fisherman? A hunter lies in wait. A fisherman waits and lies.”

This got me thinking about something that has bugged me for a while about the modern sport of hunting: blinds and stands. (And associated with those, things like lures and decoys.)

“Hunt” is an active verb. It is defined by my American Heritage Dictionary, as it relates to animals, as the act of pursuing, seeking out, searching for, or searching through (as in “I’ve hunted those woods many times”). It is not defined as “soaking a cloth with doe urine, fixing it to a post or a tree, and climbing the tree to sit on a seat built there and wait for a buck to come to you.”*

A good hunter is not necessarily one who comes home with the biggest set of antlers. A good hunter is one who actively seeks out the area where the game lives, then pursues the game as it moves throughout that area until a clean shot can be made (and is successful).

And I don’t really want to do that, which is probably why I’ve never hunted.



*Now, the taking of game for food with no consideration for sport is a different matter. When one’s survival is at stake, there is nothing wrong with fishing in a barrel, so to speak. As long as the owner of the barrel is OK with it.

Courts Don't Grant Rights, Either

This story from the AP was put on KOLO-TV’s Twitter feed today. In brief, the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver ruled that an illegal immigrant’s rights, including the right to keep and bear arms, are limited and not fully protected by the Constitution.

Most of the comments are some variation on the theme of “he isn’t a citizen, so he does not have the rights of a citizen.” I have to disagree. The Constitution (or any other Law made by man) does not grant the people rights; it simply recognizes certain of the rights we have as people. The right to defend ourselves, our families, and our liberty is one of them.

I realize there exists a policy where convicted felons are denied the exercise of the right to keep firearms. I’ve seen an explanation along the lines of: when a person commits a felony–becomes a criminal–that person has broken the unwritten compact of society. He thus no longer has the rights society enjoys, including freedom and firearms.

In this case, however, Mr. Huitron-Guizar was not a convicted felon when he was in possession of firearms. He did plead guilty to being an illegal immigrant, though, so I suppose it could be argued that he had committed a crime that broke the societal compact. Still, he was not yet convicted when he actually had the firearms.

Which leads me to another puzzlement: why should this restriction apply only to firearms? Why would we not also forbid felons from owning any sort of weaponry after they are released from custody, including kitchen knives, baseball bats, and even automobiles? In fact, if one has been released from custody, doesn’t that signify that we are accepting him back into society? Why should we then restrict any of the human rights recognized as belonging to society?

But I digress. My point is that the Constitution does not give us rights, by the same measure that the courts do not give them to us.

Drug Deals

John Stossel recently published a blog item positing that a "War on Drugs" inevitably begets a "War on Guns". He concludes that anybody who opposes gun control, to be intellectually consistent, must also oppose the "war on drugs".

I agree, and I do. In my opinion the "war on drugs" is a waste of resources. It has not only raised a furor over the armament of the drug gangs, it's led to avarice and corruption. Somewhere along the line, somebody came up with the bright idea of confiscating assets used during illegal activity. These assets are then generally auctioned to the public, creating revenue for the governments. The more they confiscate, the more revenue they bring in.

Now, don't get me wrong. I'm not calling for drug legalization. Like the author of a comment on Mr. Stossel's blog, I see where making drug use, sales, and distribution illegal can be useful--even helpful--for society. The question is how aggressive enforcement should be. I have a proposal (surprise, surprise).

Drug crimes should be like seat belt crimes: a secondary infraction. When a person causes an accident, robs someone, or murders someone, and drugs are involved, the drug charges would serve to make the penalties worse.